Complaints of degrading treatment in prisons must include a detailed and adequate description of the circumstances and events

JUDGMENT

Melnikov v. Ukraine 22.10.2020 (app. no. 66753/11)

see here 

SUMMARY

Humiliating treatment and detention conditions. The applicant was convicted of serious offenses (intentional homicide, kidnapping, robbery, theft, etc.) and was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 years in prison.

He complained about the conditions of his detention in the prisons, stating that the personal space in his cell was 2.5 sq.m. and generally that there was an overcrowding of prisoners. He also complained about the way his sentences were calculated.

The ECtHR ruled that his allegations were vague and unproven. According to the Court, the applicants must provide a detailed and sufficient description of the facts and situations which they complain about regarding prison conditions and which do not have sufficient general objections, as in the present case. It also considered that the applicant had not substantiated his action in the part concerning the calculation of the penalties and the breach of Article 7 of the ECHR.

The Court found no violation of Articles 3 and 7 of the ECHR. On the contrary, it found a violation of the reasonable duration of the criminal proceedings (article 6 par. 1 of the ECHR). The trial of the first case lasted 10 years and 10 months for the two levels of jurisdiction, a time that was deemed unreasonable. For this violation he awarded an amount of 3,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage.

PROVISIONS

Article 3

Article 6 § 1

Article 7

PRINCIPAL FACTS

The applicant, Valeriy Melnikov, was born in 1967 and is currently serving a life sentence.

The case concerned criminal proceedings brought against him in connection with organised crime.

He was arrested in June 2002 on suspicion of kidnapping for ransom and a number of other
offences. Eventually some of the charges against him were severed in a separate set of criminal
proceedings. In May 2010 the applicant was found guilty of, among other things, double murder for
profit and kidnapping. That judgment was upheld in April 2011. Subsequently, in January 2012, he
was also found guilty in another set of criminal proceedings of banditry, eleven counts of murder for
profit and numerous counts of kidnapping for ransom, extortion, robbery, theft, police
impersonation and illegal arms possession.

He was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment in the first set of proceedings and life imprisonment in
the second set of proceedings. The courts set off the almost eight years he had spent in pre-trial
detention against the life sentence, refusing to count it towards his 15-year prison sentence, despite
his appeal on points of law in that regard.

Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) Mr Melnikov
alleged that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonable.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT….

ARTICLE 3

The applicant complained that the physical conditions of his detention in the Kyiv SIZO had been inadequate. In such cases applicants must provide a detailed and consistent account of the facts complained of. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that, although the applicant alleged that overcrowding had been a major problem, he did not provide any factual details in support of that allegation. His only relevant submission was that each inmate had about 2.5 sq. m of personal space. The applicant did not specify which cells he was referring to, for how long he had been detained there and with how many persons, whether he had been afforded an individual sleeping place, whether his allegation of overcrowding concerned one or more cells, and so on. His allegation concerning ventilation was equally vague. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

ARTICLE 6 § 1

The applicant also complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonable. It follows that the criminal proceedings against the applicant in the present case lasted from 26 June 2002 until 23 April 2013 at two levels of jurisdiction, that is, for ten years and almost ten months.  As pointed out by the applicant in the present case, the Court has already analysed the reasonableness of the length of the criminal proceedings in which he was one of the defendants . In Volchkova and Others the Court held that the length of the criminal proceedings in respect of Mr Dubovoy (from 13 August 2002 to 23 April 2013 at two levels of jurisdiction) had been excessive and thus in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In the present case the period to be taken into account was even slightly longer.  It follows that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings.

ARTICLE 7

The guarantee enshrined in Article 7 is an essential element of the rule of law.

In the present case the following penalties were imposed on the applicant: ‑a sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment in respect of double murder for profit, kidnapping and a number of other crimes; a sentence of life imprisonment in respect of banditry, eleven counts of murder for profit, kidnapping for ransom and numerous other offences

The Court notes that the applicant contested neither the compliance of those penalties with criminal law nor the accessibility and foreseeability of the substantive legal provisions applied. The gist of his complaint is that by having refused to count the duration of his pre-trial detention (for almost eight years) towards the fifteen years’ prison sentence and by having instead set it off against his life sentence, the domestic courts effectively altered to his disadvantage, in an unlawful manner, his penalty imposed under the judgment of 21 May 2010.

In so far as the applicant can be understood as implying that the domestic law was extensively construed to his detriment, it is noteworthy that his grievance does not concern the interpretation and application of substantive criminal law as such, but is confined to the allegation of incorrect application of the rules of criminal procedure towards the calculation of a prison sentence imposed.

Bearing in mind that the distinction between the scope of a sentence and the manner of its execution may sometimes be not immediately apparent and may depend on the particularities of the domestic legal system concerned the Court does not exclude that the manner in which the procedural rules such as those at issue in the present case are applied might, under different circumstances, lead to a finding that a penalty harsher than that provided by law has been imposed. However, looking behind appearances and assessing the reality of the situation complained of in the present case, the Court sees no indication of a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 7 of the Convention.

In the Court’s view, in the present case the applicant has failed to show convincingly that the domestic courts’ approach to the calculation of his sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment in case no. 49-1205 had the effect of increasing the severity of his punishment or, indeed, any practical effect on his situation.

In sum, the Court considers that the applicant has not substantiated his complaint and rejects it under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention as being manifestly ill-founded.

Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)


ECHRCaseLaw
Close Popup

Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να σας προσφέρουμε καλύτερη εμπειρία στο διαδίκτυο. Συμφωνώντας, αποδέχεστε τη χρήση των cookies σύμφωνα με την Πολιτική Cookies.

Close Popup
Privacy Settings saved!
Ρυθμίσεις Απορρήτου

Όταν επισκέπτεστε μία ιστοσελίδα, μπορεί να λάβει κάποιες βασικές πληροφορίες από τον browser σας, κατά βάση υπό τη μορφή cookies. Εδώ μπορείτε να ρυθμίσετε τη συγκατάθεσή σας σε όλα αυτά.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources, so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.

Google Analytics
We track anonymized user information to improve our website.
  • _ga
  • _gid
  • _gat

Απορρίψη όλων των υπηρεσιών
Save
Δέχομαι όλες τις υπηρεσίες